Conference turris::womannotes-v1

  <---(.0)--(100% agreement with Dave, perhaps everybody else agrees
  and thus no replies?                                                  
  
  One further point, are not men hindered from understanding women
  by the fact that (some) women do not believe that men can
  understand them and thus hold themselves at a distance? (and
  visa versa?).
  
  Dave.

    If men are not different from women, then why is it that as I read
    through this notes file I notice that most of the women tend to
    agree and understand each other and most of the men who write in
    tend to disagree and not understand???
    
    Men and women are different in regard to their understanding and
    perception of what women's problems and issues are.  I think that
    men and women are different in that men are quicker to become
    physically violent than most women.  I also think that men and women
    are different in that to attempt to remember a quote or old saying,
    "Most men stumble on love in their search for sex.  Most women stumble
    on sex in their search for love."  Men and women ARE different in
    regard to certain things.  Whether this is inherent or caused by
    sexist upbringing is up to debate.  Of course, as far as individuals
    go I have met men who are sensitive, thoughtful, and kind, (thank
    God!) and women who are real jerks.  But, I have a feeling that
    even the women I thought were real jerks might understand some women's
    issues better than some of the most sensitive men.
    
    Dave, if you don't really think men and women are different then
    why is it so hard for you to understand what the women are saying
    in this file???  (At least that's my impression.  You always seem
    to have SOME objection.)
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  I just thought of this quote from a Marge Piercy poem,
          "Just remember when we clash badly
           That every man had a mother
           Whose beloved son he was,
           And every woman had a mother
           Whose beloved son she wasn't"
    

	> Men and women are different in regard to their understanding
	> and perception of what women's problems and issues are.

	    This varies *widely* with the individual.  Understanding and
	perception come from experience.  If everybody of a particular
	sex had the same life experiences, it would be possible for
	universal sex differences in understanding and perception to
	occur, though individuals could still vary widely in them.
	    It is, of course, true that our society causes separate life
	experiences for the sexes; and this accounts for the fact that
	many women are likely to understand such issues better than many
	men.  It doesn't count as an inherent sex difference, though.

	> . . . men are quicker to become physically violent than most
	> women.

	    In a society that accepts and in many ways encourages outer-
	directed anger for men and not for women, it's not surprising
	that many men (not "men" - it certainly doesn't apply to me) are
	like this and that many women are not.  Considering that other
	cultures exist where the opposite is true, we can't call that an
	inherent sex difference either.

	> . . . men and women are different in that [most men want sex
	> and most women want love.]

	    As far as any psychologist knows, sex and love are entirely
	learned.  That's not surprising, considering their complexity.
	Also not surprising, then, are the wide individual and cultural
	variations in these differences.

	> Whether this is inherent or caused by sexist upbringing is up
	> to debate.

	    The debate has been raging long and hard and many assump-
	tions like the ones you've made have been put to the test.  It
	is such a widely-studied area that an entire journal - _The_
	_Journal_of_Sex_Differences_ - is devoted to it.
	    The results weigh heavily on the side of socialization for
	all but a few differences, and those differences seem to be
	pretty minor.

	    I'm not denying that sex differences that result from soci-
	alization are worth our attention.  On the contrary, they are
	indicators of what our society is up to.
	    But what I'm saying is that we've got to be careful, when
	discussing sex differences, not to automatically assume that
	they are biologically inherent.  The evidence suggests other-
	wise.  Language that refers to "men" and "women" (as opposed to,
	for example, "many/most/some men/women") suggests biological
	differences and should be avoided.
			<_Jym_>

    I think I know where Lorna's at with her contention, Jym, and if I'm
    right then I quite agree with her:
    
    Men and women are indeed different, necessarily so, in the way they
    appreciate women's problems and issues.  Or men's.  For the same reason
    blacks and whites, young and old, rich and poor, exceptional and
    ordinary differ in their perceptions of the problems of being black or
    old or poor or unusual in this racialist, ageist, classist, puritanical
    society.  The difference may be slight, but it is always there.  Now,
    that's not to say that many men (yourself included) are not
    substantially more sensitive to the EXISTANCE of the problems that
    women face than are many of the women who actually face them, but I
    would argue that even your perception of their nature necessarily lacks
    the poignancy and immediacy that is conferred by first-person
    experience of them (regardless of how that experience is dealt with
    intrapsychically).  If you are an identifiable member of some other
    devalued group, you can come to some sort of analogous understanding,
    but it will always be a case of "through a glass, darkly" since every
    group is devalued differently. 
    
    					=maggie
    

  Re: .2 Hurray for Lorna !!

>    If men are not different from women, then why is it that as I read
>    through this notes file I notice that most of the women tend to
>    agree and understand each other and most of the men who write in
>    tend to disagree and not understand???

  I've been trying to articulate how I viewed the differences in the
  responses to the conference.  You've done it perfectly!  Thanks.

  Now hopefully, with this insight, we can continue to make progress in
  making our diffences be non-issues.  Our diffences are important and
  useful; we (collectively as a group) should treat them as a gift, not as 
  stumbling block.
					-Leslie

	>    If men are not different from women, then why is it that as I read
	>    through this notes file I notice that most of the women tend to
	>    agree and understand each other and most of the men who write in
	>    tend to disagree and not understand???
    
	I don't believe I or the orginator of this note denied a difference,
	however after you've re-read the notes perhaps you should consider the
	fact that people will disagree regardless of their sex - we're all
	different for different reasons (as further replies have emphasised).
	It would be a boring world if we all agreed (and this notes file
	wouldn't exist).

	>    Dave, if you don't really think men and women are different then
	>    why is it so hard for you to understand what the women are saying
	>    in this file???  (At least that's my impression.  You always seem
	>    to have SOME objection.)
    
	Again I haven't said anywhere at anytime ever that there is no
	difference between men and women, stop putting words in my mouth (I
	mean keyboard).
	I don't have objection to anybody saying anything in this file, perhaps
	you could give some examples, however I may disagree with people (not
	the same). Your impression seems to be based on prejudice and not fact
	perhaps you should switch to read mode for a while...

	As for whether men can understand womens experience... well its depends
	on how you define 'understand'. I believe I can understand other mens
	experience as related to me without experiencing it first-hand, so why
	not women? Its just a case of stepping outside yourself and trying to
	see it from the other persons point of view. A bit difficult in notes
	because words can be taken the wrong way when written down.
	I would certainly never say that Americans couldn't understand British
	people merely because of our cultural (experience) differences.

	Dave.

re .6  (Dave Kerrell)

> As for whether men can understand womens experience... well its depends
> on how you define 'understand'. I believe I can understand other mens
> experience as related to me without experiencing it first-hand, so why
> not women? Its just a case of stepping outside yourself and trying to
> see it from the other persons point of view. 

It's one thing to say "I can understand what you're going through", it's
another to *really* know what an experience is like.  I'm really not sure of
the answer to this one -- I can say that I understand, but there's no way to
tell, except by literally being in the other person's place, which is
impossible unless you're there already.  

You're right, though, it depends on how "understand" is taken.  My
dictionary (American Heritage) has a number of definitions.
They get progressively weaker as the list goes on:  from "to comprehend the
nature and significance of; know:  'I don't pretend to understand the
Universe -- it's a great deal bigger than I am' (Carlyle)" to "To learn
indirectly, as by hearsay; gather; assume." So, "understanding women's
experiences" takes on different meanings by using different definitions.
(I don't want to get too picky, but we can't even understand what other
people think *words* mean, let alone feelings and experiences, which have to
be expressed in those ambiguous words!)

> I would certainly never say that Americans couldn't understand British
> people merely because of our cultural (experience) differences.

I think that there's a difference between understanding what it's like to
be from another country, and understanding what it's like to be a woman in
a world controlled by men.  I can certainly read notes, read books, discuss
things with women friends, and get a feeling for what they're going
through, but I think that my understanding is one of the weaker forms of the
word ("gather; assume") instead of the strong form ("know").

There are other examples:  Can a white person really understand what it's
like to be black?  Can we understand what japanese americans went through
during the 40's when they were put in concentration camps on the west
coast?  I don't think that I can even understand my parents' sense of
Jewishness, because of their having lived through the years of the nazi
holocaust (in america, not europe, but it's still different from my
experiences).

Prejudice and discrimination are hard to understand, and when it's a
socially accepted form (like sexism is today, and racism was for so long),
I think it's even harder.  BUT we shouldn't fight too much over whether or
not one group can really understand another.  We're trying, and that's what
really matters.  It's the group of people that don't have any understanding,
and don't care that have to be worked on.  Let's turn our efforts toward
them. 

					-- hal

        This is something like my fourth attempt at a reply here...
        the link and/or node seems to keep going down when I try.
        Sigh.  Maybe it's just as well, since much of what I would
        have said (and been flamed for) has gotten said by other
        people (like Jym), and *they've* gotten flamed for it for
        a change!
        
        Certainly there are differences between you and me... whom
        ever you happen to be, whatever sex, color, job, whatever.
        You fall into a trap when you judge anyone by categories,
        because---at best---categories can only be judged by their
        average, which doesn't really apply to anyone.  More commonly,
        however, categories are judged by totally---or at least
        largely---inaccurate external prejudices about the category.
        
        Of course "women are different from men".  Just as "blacks
        are different from whites" and "secretaries are different
        from engineers" and "people on this side of the wall are
        different from people on that side of the wall".  The statements
        are all true... but all meaningless and irrelevant.  Because
        you'll never even find two WASP women from New England who
        are the same.
        
        .2 says the women in this conference "agree and understand
        each other"... I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence in
        that direction.  Neither do all the men agree on everything.
        This is one of the conferences where Jym and I tend to agree
        most of the time... but there are others where we've argued,
        and I sure don't understand him at least half the time. 
        By your logic we should "tend to agree and understand each
        other" since we are, after all, both men.
        
        People are formed far more by their environment and background
        than by their sex or color.  Boys and girls are brought up
        to think they're different.  That's been going on for so
        many generations that it's certainly become true to some
        extent, for most people.  But that's just cultural difference,
        not *real* difference.  And there are a *lot* of cultural
        differences which make sex unimportant in comparison.  You'll
        find yourself much more in agreement with and understanding
        of a man in the same sort of job and society than you would
        with a woman from a vastly different culture... and the
        differences don't have to be as large as you might think
        to break down communication.
        
        	/dave

    re 10.7 "It's the ones that don't understand and don't care about
    understanding that have to be worked on."
    
    Too bad, but they're not the ones reading this conference.
    

    re 10.6, I resent your comment that presumably because I dared to
    disagree with you that I should "switch back to read mode for awhile".
     Listen, I spent most of my life in "read mode" and I never intend
    to switch back.
    
    Also, re 10.6, you are not the Dave I was referring to (I was referring
    to the Dave who originated this note), so I didn't put any words
    in your mouth.  You also tritely accused me of being prejudiced.
     But, some of my best friends are men!  (You see, just because I
    don't think someone knows what it feels like to be a woman doesn't
    mean I can't like other things about that person and enjoy his
    company.)
    
    in re 10.8, I have to comment on the statement that even no two
    "WASP women from New England" are exactly alike.  I have to wonder
    why you think WASP women from New England should be any more like
    each other than any other group!  But, it is true.  I am a "WASP
    woman from New England" and I've never met anyone just like me!
    
    in re to the last note by the Dave who originated this note:
    
    There are a couple of points you made that I do disagree with. 
    You state that I would probably find more in common with a man who
    did my job (a secretary) in my own culture than with a woman from
    a far different culture.  In some things, yes.  A male secretary
    at DEC and myself would know about the same movies, rock concerts,
    TV shows, our grocery budget would be similar, etc.  BUT, a woman
    from even a vastly different culture would surely understand me
    better if I talked about how it felt to be giving birth, or cramps,
    or menopause, or in discussing dating type problems, or even make-up
    or hairstyles.
    
    You also made the comment that you think that "environment and
    background" are more important than "sex or color" in determining
    differences.  Again, I don't think that's true of everything.  In
    regard to color, black people who are rich still know more about
    being black than I do although I'm poor.  So, in some ways I'd have
    more in common with a poor black person than a rich black person
    would.  But, not when it comes to saying how it is to be black.
    The same would be true of rich and poor women in regard to how it
    is to be a woman.  
    
    I really don't understand why most/some/the ones in this notefile/men
    seem to mind the idea that they are different from women.  I can
    readily admit I don't know what it would be like to be a man.  I
    can't imagine how it would be to have people expect me to change
    their tires, shovel snow, never cry, support a wife and kids, and
    maybe go off to war to give a few examples.
    

    re 10.10
    
>    ...  A male secretary
>    at DEC and myself would know about the same movies, rock concerts,
>    TV shows, our grocery budget would be similar, etc.  BUT, a woman
>    from even a vastly different culture would surely understand me
>    better if I talked about how it felt to be giving birth, or cramps,
>    or menopause, or in discussing dating type problems, or even make-up
>    or hairstyles.
    
	I'm not from a vastly different culture, but I would have a hard
	time discussing birth or menopause with you and really *knowing*
	what it's like.  I've just never gone through it.  It's experience,
	not your sex or color or whatever.  I think any man who has talked to 
	women about birth and has read books could discuss it just as well as 
	I can (or better if they've been closely involved with someone who
	has given birth).  So are you going to exclude me from topics?  Yeah, 
	you have a point when you say that men don't really understand some of
	these issues, but I know some women who don't understand them
	either (which is *really* frustrating!).

	By the way, I once had to deal with a woman from another culture.
	For the life of me, I couldn't figure out where she was coming
	from!  She just didn't have any of the same values as I, and I
	couldn't figure out what her values were.

	...Karen

Re: -.1

>	By the way, I once had to deal with a woman from another culture.
>	For the life of me, I couldn't figure out where she was coming
>	from!  She just didn't have any of the same values as I, and I
>	couldn't figure out what her values were.

Thank you Karen!  I think you hit the bull's-eye.  The point is, that we
all come from different cultures, i.e.- different value systems.  One of
things that makes this a more interesting notesfile to read *is* our
differences and how we communicate them.  For some things you will find 
yourself altering your value system to fit some things you read in this 
file, and for others, you will stand more strongly than ever.  *Whatever*
the topic or realm of experience.

Men _and_ women _and_ people of other cultures have different value systems,
maybe incomprehensible to others.  Discussing them from all sides brings
us one step closer to comprehension.

I vote for not excluding anyone from the discussions.


							Terza

        Thanks, Karen (.11)... maybe she'll listen to it coming from
        a woman.

        .10:
                
        .11 is exactly what I'm trying to say.  Everyone is different.
        All women are not the same, all men are not the same, all
        blacks are not the same.  If you think that a born rich black
        person can identify better with a born dirt poor black person
        than can a born dirt poor white person, you're sadly mistaken.
        Would you say the same thing about blondes?
        
        As for identifying with a woman from another culture... some
        of your examples show you haven't thought it out.  Discussing
        childbirth with a woman who has never been pregnant isn't
        going to be much different than talking to a man, at best.
        And if the woman's illiterate and uneducated (you know, the
        kind of society where she finds out about sex and babies
        *when it happens to her*), and the man is an experienced
        obstetrician, your viewpoint could become very difficult
        to justify.
        
        As for talking about "hairstyles and fashions", it could
        be extraordinarily difficult to get on the same wavelength
        in that area with woman from a primative tribe in India or
        Africa, for example.  A man from our own culture might not
        have actually *worn* any of those styles (tho you can never
        tell!), but he's seen them and knows enough about them to
        have informed opinions.
        
        With a male secretary in the computer business you could discuss
        tools, bosses, all the funny engineers you've seen (I know what
        you secretaries do behind our backs! :-)) etc.  You probably use
        a word processor, and very likely have a terminal wired in to a
        computer or even a cluster. You might find it difficult to
        discuss any of this meaningfully with a woman artist or a
        "traditional housewife" who'd never seen a computer and had only
        a vague idea of what an "engineer" is, much less having funny
        stories about them.  Not to mention trying it on that primative
        women from Africa who hadn't the vaguest idea of what
        electricity is.
        
        The mark of our intelligence is communication.  You can't
        communicate with someone who has no concepts in common with
        you.  You can *talk* endlessly, but you can't *communicate*.
        And it doesn't make a bit of difference what the shape or
        color of that person is.
        
        	/dave

    Hi Dave,
    
    Actually I have notice the difficulty of communicating even within
    the same culture.  That is if you can really call being a secretary
    and being a professional at Digital as being in the same culture.
    
    I don't know what :-) means.  That may be hard for you to believe,
    but that knowledge wasn't included in the briefing I got befoer
    I came to this planet.  However, I can't believe that you, who
    obviously pride yourself on being an open-minded liberal person
    who doesn't believe in stereotypes, made the statement, "I know
    what you secretaries do behind our backs!"  Well, I don't know what
    other secretaries do because we are all individuals, as you have
    pointed out, but I have better things to talk about than bosses
    at Digital.  As for Digital engineers, I know they are all different
    too.  I was married to one for 12 years, and have dated others.
     Some are conservative, some are nerds, and some are into some of
    the wildest stuff I've ever seen.
    
    As far as communicating with people from different cultures or the
    same culture, I don't really feel I have anything in common with
    anybody.  Most secretaries I meet at Digital seem to have none of
    my interests.  Most professional women seem to ignore me because
    I am a secretary and the only way I get to communicate with them
    is in this notes file.  Most managers, male or female, treat
    secretaries like maids or 2nd class citizens.  People who wind up
    with professional jobs often stereotype secretaries as all being
    people with the intellect of a lobotomy victim.  Well, WE are all
    different, too, just like you've been telling me everybody else
    is.  Being a secretary is just a job that a person can wind up having
    for awhile in life for many different reasons.  
    
    To be honest, the people I've gotten along with the best at Digital
    have been male technicians.  They're (in general) not as snobby
    as WC4 people and more fun than most of the women!  I have a harder
    time getting to know women on the job than men.  
    
    I guess I really feel we're all different for many different reasons.
     And sometimes I feel I'm more different than most.  
    
    I also guess you don't think it's possible that a person could think
    something through and still come to a different conclusion than
    you did.
    
    Lorna
    

        :-) is one of a group of symbols wich were invented to try
        to commmunicate non-verbal signals we're used to in face
        to face conversation.  :-) in particular is a little smiley
        face, turned on its side.
        
        It was invented outside DEC, long ago, but it's documented in
        the VAX notes manual, along with a lot of others. If you have a
        copy, you might look them up.  They're used pretty commonly in
        various notes conferences, and you'll be able to avoid future
        misunderstandings. 
        
        In specific, sentences, phrases, or even entire notes followed
        or prefixed by :-) are jokes... or at least something the
        writer does not intend for you to take seriously.

        As for the bulk of your note, you seem to be arguing on *my*
        side now.  Your original claim appeared (to me) to be that all
        women were somehow the same, while everyone else was different:
        such that all women could understand each other while no man
        could understand a woman.  You now seem to be agreeing that
        women don't always understand each other; although you haven't
        granted the possibility that a man may occasionally be able to
        understand a woman, I'm willing to let the point rest.  Perhaps
        we just haven't been communicating well :-) 
        
        Lorna, I'm perfectly willing to admit that it's possible for
        someone to think something through and still come to a different
        conclusion than me.  I never claimed otherwise, and I've never
        thought otherwise.  If we don't discuss *why* we have different
        conclusions, though, we'll never know whether maybe we'd agree
        if we both had all the same data: or whether maybe our basic
        definitions are so different that there's no point in
        comparison. Don't think just because I argue with you that I
        believe you to be stupid or anything: if I thought so, I
        wouldn't *bother* to argue.
        
        	/dave

     re generalizations and categorizations:
     
     The only thing that comfortably fits into a pigeonhole is a pigeon.
     
     --Mr Topaz

	    [RE .-1]:  An African or a European pigeon?
			 .-----.
			/  o o  \
			\ \___/ /
			 `-----'
			 <_Jym_>

    Following is a quote from "A History of Women in America"
    by Carol Hymonwitz and Michaele Weissman, published in 1978
    by Bantam.
    
    "The idea that the personal is political was the most
    important insight of modern feminism.  It led to the
    understanding that women were a caste or class, linked
    together by their sex.  Regardless of the many differences
    among groups of women - class, race, age, education, life
    style - all women were subject to sexism.  One had only to
    listen to their everyday experiences to perceive their
    common plight."
    
    Re .18, do you feel this is bullshit?  And, if so, then I
    wonder why this conference even exists.
    
    Lorna
    

        Obviously I can't answer for .18, but I can answer the same
        question for myself... since her opinions hit pretty close
        to mine.
        
        First off, Lorna, the word "bullshit" wasn't used.  What was
        said is that all women are different.  Saying that all women are
        identical because they're all subject to sexism is like saying
        that all *people* are identical because they're all subject to
        death.  In a small sense, it's true... but that similarity is
        drastically overshadowed by the many differences. 
        
        And as for why this conference exists... it's because people
        are interested in discussing (and maybe even trying to correct)
        the problem.  The problem is sexual discrimination.  The
        fact that you might think all women are identical while others
        disagree is irrelevant to that problem, and the primary
        discussion is fully capable of continuing without agreement
        on the issue.
        
        	/dave

    I think the problem is one of definition.  As a friend very succinctly
    put it "Just what does it mean to be 'different from' or 'the same as'
    somebody else?".  Have we to be clones of one another before we can say
    "we're the same"?  I don't think so.  I think that all women in a given
    culture *are* "the same" in some really important ways.  We all
    experience a common "flavor" of oppression in the working world, for
    example.  If we don't have to hold an outside job or don't have to live
    on what we ourselves can earn, then we can ignore the problems that we
    would face and that our sisters do face in that world...but the
    problems aren't less real for all that.  If we're black or hispanic or
    handicapped or whatever, the problems are intensified and
    complicated...often overshadowed...by the oppression we face on *those*
    grounds...but they aren't replaced. 
    
    We are indeed all different...but as *people*, not as *women*.
    
    					=maggie

    It was a hot, muggy saturday afternoon in june. I was shopping
    for household items in a large chain department store. As I was
    passing this young man, in his late 20's, he turned to his son,
    who was playing with cheap young-teen fashion jewelry, and said
    "You don't want that, that's for girls....". He used the term
    that for the jewelry because he couldn't spite his god by actually
    pronouncing the words and the way he said girls was the way most
    people would say..."that's yucky!" To him....the jewelry and the
    girls were both yucky......and now...his son is learning how yucky
    jewelry and girls are.....
    
    round and round we go.
    

    <--(Dave sneaked in while I was writing)
    
    Dave, I don't agree that the differences are more important than
    the similarities (I know you didn't actually say that, but your
    phrasing appears to imply it).  I would argue strongly that women
    are treated very similarly across all other boundaries; that this
    can be demonstrated by examination of the amount of power women
    hold at any social stratum in this culture (cross-cultural comparisons
    being too contaminated for legitimate conclusions to be drawn).
    
    					=maggie

>   If we don't have to hold an outside job or don't have to live
>   on what we ourselves can earn, then we can ignore the problems that we
>   would face and that our sisters do face in that world...but the
>   problems aren't less real for all that.
        
        But how is this any different from a *man* who ignores the
        problems?  And how is a woman who understands the problems
        and attempts to improve things different from a man who does
        the same?  Again, sexual boundaries are not the proper points
        to make distinctions.
        
        There *are* women---I've met some---who honestly believe that
        equal rights for women is an evil concept.  I assume they are
        merely uneducated as to what equal rights *really* means for
        everyone... but I assume the same about a man who has similar
        beliefs, because equal rights (for everyone) can only *help*
        everyone.  But more importantly, if you're talking about
        commonality simply by "being hurt by oppression against
        women"... the fact is that she doesn't believe she *is* being
        hurt... and she's not, if she can do everything she wants to
        (like stay home and take care of kids/house).  She has no
        more empathy for your position than any similarly insensitive
        man... in fact, less, since she may feel threatened that
        you're trying to force her to live your life.

        Even if you narrow the discussion to working women, you're
        overstepping your bounds, because there are many women in
        occupations which *don't* discriminate against women (in fact
        there are some, like nursing and secretarial jobs, which still
        discriminate against *men* to varying degrees), who are very
        happy in their occupations, and may well see no reason to feel
        oppressed (and to forestall flames, keep in mind that I'm *not*
        saying "all nurses/secretaries/whatever are happy with their
        jobs"... I'm not, and that's beside the point anyway... you need
        only postulate *one* who is happy). And again, there's no
        *reason* for them to feel oppressed.  It'd be nice if they were
        concerned for all the others who *are* oppressed... but need I
        point out that this is equally true for *men*? 
        
        As for your definitions... if we're not dealing with
        mathematical precision, then we're in Wonderland, where "words
        mean precisely what I wish them to mean: no more, no less"
        regardless of what definitions anyone else may choose to accept. 
        
        All women have certain physical similarities.  Whether or not
        they have distinct *mental* similarities is a point which is
        open to debate (we've been doing pretty good so far, anyway).
        They are most *definitely* not all the same, by any objective
        reasonable definition of "same" (unless "same" = "woman", which
        isn't a very insightful statement, because I'm perfectly willing
        to admit that all women are women... I don't think that proves
        much). If you insist on defining "same" as being some arbitrary
        category of vague similarities known only to you, then there's
        really no place for a discussion of the word "same" to go. 
        
        	/dave
                                                                   

    The following quote from Ms. magazine of July 1972 brought this
    notes file to mind:
    
    (This is from an article discussing women's consciousness
     raising groups and the participation of men.)
    
    "even well-meaning men tend to adopt an attitude of helpful
     paternalism and less enlightened ones take over the focus
     of the group by becoming adversaries-symbolic enemies to be
     defeated or convinced"
    
    I know the above is not always true but I thought it was an
    interesting comment.
    
    I certainly don't think that all women are "identical" but I do
    believe that since we live in a sexist society where men have
    long "called the shots" and controlled most of the power and
    money, and where women, for the most part, have been relegated
    to subservient roles, that this may have resulted in some 
    differences between men and women.
    
    In regard to Dave's comments about secretaries, I seriously doubt
    that any man is worried about being discriminated against by not
    being able to be a secretary.  (A man could make more money by
    doing almost anything.)  Most men's ambition is to HAVE their OWN
    secretary, not BE one.  (Well, maybe not most but a lot - especially
    in business.)
    
    
    Lorna
    

    There IS a womans lib movement.
    Is there a men's lib movement? if not.....why?
    
    a technician...male...maling 30k per year...spends 30 hrs a week
    doing job related activities he was requested to do. he spends 10
    hours a week doing....nothing....his boss...at review/raise time...
    says...hey..."pete"...(ficticious name)...you've been doing all
    we've asked you to do....don't worry about the extra time...here's
    a big raise a great review.
    
    a secretary...female of course...spends 30 hours a week doing job
    related activities that she was requested to do...the other 10 hours
    a week she spends doing....nothing..her boss...(male or female?)
    ((are bosses...male or female...alike?))
    says...gee "joan"...(ficticious name)...you've been doing a good
    job but you seem to have 10 hours a week of free time and we'd like
    to see you utilize this time more effectively...we feel that it's
    up to you to find job-related activities to fill this time....until
    we see an improvement in this area...we can only give you a so-so
    raise and a so-so review....
    
    the above is a true life account...only the names have been changed
    to protect the innocent and the guilty.
    
    how come female managers will not associate with subordinate females
    such as secretaries....and male managers will.
    
    if men and woman are so similiar....why is is that most woman have
    very few men friends...ok...a few execeptions....and most men have
    very few woman friends...again, a few exceptions. does sex..not
    gender..interfere?
    
    i go to concerts...i see, generally, more men than woman...there
    are as many male facilities as woman facilities....the male facilities
    have no lines....the female facilities have lines 3 blocks long...
    does this cause a cultural gap?...is this a difference?
    
    i ask all this with NO arrogance....
         
    

    Re .27, I think it's great that you feel that way about your
    secretary, but unfortunately it is still quite uncommon
    for female managers to form friendships with secretaries.
    
    Lorna
    

        .25: I must admit I don't directly know of any men who want to
        be secretaries... but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
        Certainly there are men who want to be nurses, though they too
        suffer from discrimination, and could "make more money by doing
        almost anything".  Certainly in either case one wouldn't
        expect a man *or* a woman to take such a job for the money;
        but they could take the job because they *like* it while
        still wishing for better conditions and pay.
        
        .whatever: Someone mentioned the bathroom quotas in public
        places... I've always thought it was pretty absurd to have
        sex-segregated bathrooms anyway.  I've also seen cases where the
        management-specified labelling was ignored.  At crowded concerts
        (with long lines at the women's rooms and short or no lines at
        the "men's" rooms), I've seen a lot of women using the men's
        rooms... seems very practical, under the circumstances, and
        nobody seemed to mind much.  There are places in Europe and
        european-controlled Caribbean islands (such as French
        Guadeloupe) where (aside from primarily touristy areas) where
        most if not all public bathrooms are "co-ed".  Of course,
        they also charge money for toilet paper, but you can't have
        everything! ;-)
        
        My wife (before we were married) was at U. Mass in Amherst.
        Her dorm for a long time had had a co-ed bathroom at one
        end of the hall.  Unfortunately the college closed it down
        "because of plumbing codes".
        
        Back to the topic: A lot of people point out culturally imposed
        differences between men and women *in our culture* as evidence
        that men and women are intrinsically different.  I object
        strongly.  This is evidence only of a screwed-up culture,
        and I think it's safe to say that anyone interested in this
        conference already recognizes that.  Unless we're trying
        to think of *solutions* to that problem, why discuss it further?
        
        The purpose of this topic has nothing to do with our screwed
        up culture, or anyone else's.  It's about intrinsic differences
        or similaries between men and women, *regardless* of culture.
        That's an authoritative statement, by the way, not an opinion,
        because I started this topic!
        
        If you say "men are different from women because women wear
        dresses and men don't", be prepared to show that transvestites,
        Polynesians, and Scotsmen don't exist.  I don't care that women
        are underpayed and underappreciated in this society... I know
        it, you know it, I know that you know it, and now you know that
        I know it.  But there *are* societies where women are in control,
        and have been more historically, so that don't mean beans
        with respect to the discussion I tried to start here.  I
        also don't care about physical differences, unless you can
        prove a direct and universal correlation to significant mental
        and emotional differences.  The fact that women tend to have
        smaller bladders and go to the bathroom more often, or even
        the fact that this is often complicated by poor design and
        allocation of bathrooms, does not, as far as I can tell,
        have any dramatic effect on the psychology of my wife or
        any other woman I know.
        
        	/dave

    doesn;t that tell us something about our society....an admission
    that the secretary is one of the most important/influential pos-
    itions in a business team yet the lease paid.
    
    how can we allow this to go on?
    if you are a manager you can go to your manager and you can at
    least try to influence him/her (probably a him)
    
    i had a male and female working for me in operations....both were
    operator II's. the male was far less knowledgable and competent
    than the female. the female made 2$ less per hour. I did both
    their reviews and suggested to my boss/manager that he do some-
    thing to fix this deplorable situation.....he at first declined
    and said "that's the way it is...we'll give her as good of a raise
    as we can now and try to rush another one within the next year".
    not bad...but not good enuff....among the things I replied to him
    was this...."how can you sleep at night when this person is being
    shafted?   there's something wrong and you should do something to
    fix it!".
    	he did.
    	he went to his boss....and up the line..and within 2 months
    she recieved her review and raise that put her on an equitable level
    with the her male counterpart. she should have made more but at
    least we could all now sleep at night.
    
    	people who say they can't do anything....don't do anything.
    it's the people who think they can change things that have a
    chance at changing things.
        where would the U.S. be if all the revolutionaries said...
    "aww...nothing we can do....that's the way it is...we better 
    pay those taxes and accept the fact that we can't govern our-
    selves"?
    
    
    	your conscience
    

    Re .30, I don't think it matters whether there are intrinsic
    differences between men and women or not.  That is my response
    to your topic.  I think that since men and women have been
    treated so differently by society for so long that by now
    there *are* differences.  I think that the differences that
    are unfair to women should be changed.  I should further say that
    I think that men and women have been treated differently for so
    long that by now there are differences that have become so
    ingrained that they might as well have been intrinsic, whether
    they were or not.  Women and men can be different without one
    having to be better.  I would really have hated to have been
    raised to be a man anyway.
    
    
    Lorna
    

        Lorna... I'm talking about men and women.  You're talking
        about our society.  There is little relationship between
        the two subjects, and what you're talking about has nothing
        to do with this topic.
        
        Obviously there really *are* differences in the *behavior*
        of many men and women (but not *all*) in *our society*. 
        But no matter how poorly women are treated in one society,
        or for how long, it doesn't affect women or men in societies
        which do things differently.  It doesn't make for a difference
        between men and women in the abstract... only for differences
        in the behavior of men and women in the screwed-up society.
        
        I think it's about time to give up on this topic... I can
        see it's not going to go anywhere.  Sigh.
        
        	/dave

    Since our society is made up of men and women then I think there
    is quite a relationship between the two.  
    
    However, if this topic is about whether there are abstract
    intrinsic, psychological differences between men and women
    then I would have two questions.  First, if you believe there
    are none, how would you prove it?  And, second, in what way 
    does this relate to the women's movement?
    
    
    Lorna
    

    Dave, you never did say in the basenote that you were inquiring about
    *innate* differences but no other kind.  Now that I know that that's
    what you intended I can see it, but it certainly wasn't obvious
    for openers.
    
    In light of that, I can only agree with you that no such differences
    (beyond the well-known physical ones) are known to exist.  On the
    other hand, there are indications that there may actually be
    some...it's just too difficult at present to partial out the
    interactions.
    
    Given the impossibility of progressing beyond the nature/nurture
    controversy, where does that leave this topic?
    
    					=maggie

    I had thought, now that Reagan and his cronies have launched the
    counterattack, that people would stop beating dead horses and turn
    to face the fascists, who are still alive and kicking.
    
    Pat Hardy
    

    fascists??????
    
    maybe there's one in my filing cabinet!
    :-)
    
    it's been my observation...at parties...lunch...wherever discussions
    of the intellectual kind (we all like to think THAT!) take place....
    that no matter how the conversers got started...i.e. which subject
    was actually launched that started the conversational ballgame ....
    after some period of time off-shoots, tangents, are just automatically
    generated and, since they all tie-in in some manner or other, are
    usually accepted and acted upon accordingly. For example, one person
    could ask "what did you think of reagans speech last night....?"
    and within an hour the conversation could have evolved to..."what
    are the best ways to prepare liver".  2 totally, seemingly, un-related
    topics that were actually tied together by the strings of conversation
    that ensued.
    
    no one ever gets mad then....!?
    
    
    and as a member of the aspca....just WHO IS beating those dead horse?
    I'd like a word with them......! There must be SOME law they are
    breaking....!:-)
    
    

    Re .37
    
    Ah...perhaps I should have included a smiley face.  But there is
    so much mischief and injustice in the world, I am always perplexed
    when I see people disputing about whether one can have an *authentic*
    understanding of somebody's exclusive share of it.
    
    I had an elementary school teacher, a certifiable airhead, who used to
    speculate aloud as to whether white people could really understand
    blacks, and vice versa, obviously with the hope of eliciting some
    response from the children whose opinions she didn't respect anyhow.
    It's possible this leads me to suspect, unjustly, the motives of
    those who debate similar questions.
    
    Pat Hardy
       
    
                    

    re 38.
    	I see...that's the way it is...you can't fight city hall....
     there's nothing you can do about it.  
    	Sorry , but, the way I see it...if it takes 20k to live a
    comfortable life....minimum wage should be 20k. anything less
    is a crime.
    
    re 39.
    	I get it....I'm not capable of understanding the differences
    but you ARE capable of determining who is or isn't an airhead. Is
    there a school you attended that gave courses in air head
    determination?
    
    
    oh yeah....:-)
    i almost forgot.
    
    arrogant rik..flaming airhead....2nd class
    
    voltaire....every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do.
    
    bob kennedy.....people who don't get angry don't make changes.
    
    rik sawyer....i'm angry about all the good people aren't doing.
    
    

        .35:
        
        Well, Maggie, I did say
        
>       ... I've yet to see any objective
>       indication of real, objective, verifiable *psychological*
>       differences.  Certainly there are differences... most seem
>       more likely to be attributable to society rather than to
>       any inherent differences between the sexes.
 
        ... which I rather assumed was sufficient to describe what
        I intended, thinking that "real, objective, verifiable" and
        "...most seem more likely to be attributable to society rather
        than to an inherent differences..." would, if anything, be
        a clearer and more definitive description than "innate".
        Was I really wrong?
        
        But perhaps that's really going too far, also, because I
        started the note by stating a curiousity about what differences
        women *perceived*, which implies that it may *not* be objective
        or verifiable... or even real.  I'm just frustrated because
        (I thought, anyway) that I had stated up front that I wasn't
        interested in culturally-enforced differences (real or
        otherwise), and that's about all I was getting.
        
        Maybe getting the topic back in line... I saw a newspaper
        article (in the local town paper), about research claiming
        that "high testosterone levels" in the uterus (generally
        implying a male baby) was linked to "higher math skills".
        I recall hearing of this many years ago, in fact... it was
        highly controversial at the time, and seems not to have
        established itself any better.  My personal opinion is that
        the theory is ludicrous... but I s'pose you never know for
        sure.
        
        	/dave

    I am now going into read_only_on_occasion_if_at_all mode.
    too many know it all men....like me and butenhof...sticking
    their mouths and thoughts in here. I beg your forgiveness
    and vow to either listen to women talk about women's issues
    or read a book about it....where i'll have no chance at all
    to interfere with the subject at hand.
    
    
    	signing off.......
    
    
    	

        I'm not "know it all".  If I were, I wouldn't bother to talk
        with you "mere mortals"... I suspect it'd be more frustration
        than I could take.  You know that old saying, "those of you
        who think you know it all are extremely irritating to those
        of us who do".
        
        I'm participating in the discussion.  I'm adding my viewpoint
        and questioning others.  I'm getting flamed and occasionally
        even flaming back (:-)).
        
        Both within the "charter" of this conference and in general
        moral terms, I have as much right as anyone to participate
        in this discussion.  So do you.  If you have something to
        say, you're not doing any good by refusing to speak (write?)
        up.  Just watch the insults, because this is a discussion
        forum... not SOAPBOX.
        
        Women's issues don't just affect women.  They never have.
        They never will.  Everything which affects anyone affects
        everyone: however much the others might want to pretend it
        doesn't.  "Reverse discrimination" is still discrimination,
        and the fact that women have been locked out of "the men's
        world" doesn't mean women are going to help themselves by
        locking us out of their world.  Nor are you going to help
        by locking yourself out of it.  Because, my sometimes unpleasant
        friend, it's all the same world.  And it'll never be a truely
        good world until we all realize that.
        
        If a majority of the women in this conference ask me to leave,
        I will, without question.  Because that mere intent will
        prove that this conference has absolutely no chance of
        accomplishing anything that could reasonably be expected
        of it.  You can't fight intolerance with intolerance.  It
        may make you feel better in the short term, but it won't
        solve anyone's problems.
        
        	/dave

    re /dave:
    
    in my intro I said I would try to participate very little; listen
    and learn as it were.
    
    what prompts me to write is that it seems that about half of the
    replies in this file are from /dave. And all of those seem to be
    very long and argumentative.
    
    Seems most of the "discussion" of this notesfile is arguing with
    /dave. And I am just really tired of it.
    
    I'm not asking you to leave or stop participating (if the WOMEN
    of this file agree) but to be a little less anxious to stick your
    nose in.
    
    (from .43) "I'm participating in the discussion." 
    
    Yes you are, but it looks to me, more like you're trying to *dominate*
    the discussion. 
    
    Is the purpose of this file to rid the world of sex discrimination?
    I thought it was supposed to be a place for women to discuss issues
    important to them amongst themselves.
    sure, intolerance and discrimination are one (two?) of the biggest
    women's issues, but is the purpose of this file to solve (fight)
    that problem, or for women to discuss how to cope with it while
    working to change it?
    
    I'm not sure anymore where I was trying to go...
    So to conclude, please /dave, don't leave, but do listen more, and
    talk less.
    
    sm

        Actually, recently, for some reply I was doing, I had occasion
        to do a DIR/ALL/AUTHOR=TARBET in this conference, and out
        of curiousity also did one for myself... Maggie outweighed me
        heavily.  It's possible that I'm second highest, or that
        I've even surpassed her by now, but I'm far from "dominating
        the conference"... it just may seem like it to some people
        who don't like to listen to me.
        
        If the purpose of this conference is "a place for women to
        discuss issues important to them amongst themselves", then it
        never should have been opened for general participation, and
        Maggie surely wouldn't have actually *invited* men to
        participate.  I took that as a clear sign that "the women" were
        interested in making it a bit more than that. Although I was
        interested from the initial announcement, I ignored it until I
        was invited to join in. Since I *was* invited, and since I think
        (and at least some others---among them women,
        incidentally---seem to agree) that I have something to
        contribute, I'll continue to do so, with my previously noted
        stipulation.
        
        My mental construction simply doesn't allow me to be a passive
        observer.  I can't.  If I need to say something, I need to
        say it.  If you think I need to say something too often,
        well, nobody says you have to *read* everything I write.
        KP3 will handle it very nicely.  That's what it's for.  Sorry,
        but the only alternative is starting a "let's evict Dave"
        vote note... and who would that really help?

        I'm not trying to be obnoxious... and I don't really get
        the impression that most people think I am.  I try not to
        be obnoxious even when others are obnoxious to me, although
        I'm sure I don't always succeed.  This is just a subject
        which means a lot to me, and I can't help but take it a bit
        personally... just like everyone else in here.
        
        	/dave

    re: 44
    
    I agree - every time I log into this conference - /dave has his
    .02 in every note.  I understand you have an opinion, and you are
    intitled to it, but must you cause an argument every time? 
    
    Let us women discuss issues /dave - i'm really tired of you telling
    us how things are.  and should anyone disagree, you come back with
    a long tirade about how right you are.
    
    sorry - i'm tired of it.
    
    angeline

    re: 10.44, 10.46
    
    I agree with angeline and s marshall. There's so much shouting and
    fighting that we are losing our safe space for discussion. I also
    feel that the conference is often dominated by men who want
    to theorize rather than discuss real experience. /dave, the requests
    made of you seem quite reasonable: no one's (publicly) asked you
    to leave, but people have asked you to listen more. your impulse
    is to react defensively. perhaps you could think about why these
    requests are being made before reacting.
    
    thanks
    liz

    Abstract.  There is a popular perception that Dave Butenhof is
    	dominating this conference, and interjecting his personal
    	opinions in discussions where they make no contribution.
    	A look at the notes actually written in this conference
    	during the last month indicates that this is illusory, and
    	that, while Dave is a relatively prolific contributor to
    	the conference, he has kept a clear sense of what sort of
    	notes are appropriate in what discussions.
    
    Hit NEXT now if you're not interested in seeing the evidence.
    
    Wow.  It must be "Dump on Dave" week.  (If you don't think the
    last few replies are "dumping-on", go back and re-read them and
    imagine that they were directed at you.)
    
    Anyways, I thought it might be interesting to tyry to get a little
    perspective, so I went back and looked at the last month's entries
    in this file.
    
    First, a bit of philosophy.  A notes conference has room for
    lots of discussions to go on at once.  This conference, in
    particular, seems to fill at least two roles:  a "support and
    resources" role, where women can say "How do you feel when..." 
    or "How do you look for a new job in DEC?"; and a discussion
    role, where people can talk engage in theoretical discussions
    about cultural differences.  Early on, a sort of consensus seemed
    to emerge:  that there was room for both of these kinds of topics
    in the conference; and that men should refrain from interjecting
    their theoretical ideas into discussions that were concerned
    with concrete questions.
    
    So, with that background, has Dave really been running amok,
    scattering his philosphical opinions at random, dominating the
    conference?  Well ...
    
    In the last month (since June 10), 18 topics have been started 
    or replied to in this conference.  (I'm not counting the 
    introductory topics, 1, 2, and 7.)  Dave has written at least one
    note in exactly six of those discussions.  (That's right, SIX.  
    One-third.)
    
    Let's look more closely.
    
    	Topic 8.  Discussion of "having it all".  Dave wrote three
    replies, making the general point that men don't "have it all",
    either.
    
    	Topic 10.  A difference which is no difference.  With 45
    replies, this *discussion* could be said to be dominating the
    conference (for now); and Dave wrote 10 of those replies, which
    isn't surprising, since he started the topic.
    
    	Topic 34.  Women's reproductive rights.  Dave wrote one factual
    reply, adding the "Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights" to
    the list of organizations supporting abortion rights.
    
    	Topic 36.  Coeducation.  Originally introduced as a
    "theoretical" or "discussion" topic, and Dave contributed one
    reply to the discussion.
    
    	Topic 39.  A big difference.  Another discussion topic. 
    Dave wrote two replies suggesting that there isn't such a thing
    as a separate "women's culture", and one reply taking remarkably
    mild umbrage at being directly and personally insulted.
    
    	Topic 40.  Surviving the job hunt.  Clearly a concrete topic,
    and Dave wrote one reply with his own experiences and suggestions
    for job hunting.
    
    Summary.  Dave has made constructive contributions to topics
    34 and 40, where constructive contributions were called for.
    He contributed opinions and comments to topics 36 and 39, which
    were clearly discussion topics, and topic 8, which had certainly
    become a discussion topic.  He participated in a protracted
    discussion in topic 10, which he started, but certainly didn't
    keep going all by himself (remember that he wrote less than 1/4
    of the notes in it).  And he hasn't contributed at all to twelve
    other topics which were active during that month.
    
    Discussion.  So why does it *look* like Dave has been dominating
    WOMANNOTES?  The answer is really pretty simple.  If you read
    the conference regularly, you see notes by Dave regularly.  In
    fact, these tend to be concentrated in one or two discussions
    where philosophical debate is, if not exactly welcome, at least
    appropriate; and when Dave writes in discussions where concrete
    advice is called for, that's what he provides; but none the less,
    if you see a new note from him everything you open the conference,
    you will get the false impression that he is somehow dominating
    the conference.
    
    	-Neil

    
    /dave
    
       For the most part I have kept silent and been read only in this
       notes file.  When I have something to contribute I have and will.
    
       Just because some of us don't necessarily agree with /dave doesn't
       mean we don't appreciate his contribution to this conference.
       I for one want /dave to continue as an active part of this notes
       file and would feel badly if he left.
    
    /mt

        Well, after .48, I'm not going to say as much, or as strongly,
        as I might have.  According to Neil (and he seems to have
        studied his facts!), I'm doing even better than *I* thought
        I was doing!
        
        I really don't understand why some people seem to feel I'm
        rubbing them the wrong way.  As far as I can tell, I'm not all
        that atypical of the interested participants in this conference.
        
        I do sometimes disagree, and occasionally I state my opinions
        a bit overzealously... but I sure as hell am not the only
        person who does that, and I *know* I've tried a lot harder
        than several others (whom I probably don't need to name)
        to avoid being abusive about it.  But there *are* a lot of
        discussions in this conference.  Do you seriously expect
        everyone to agree completely with the original note?
        
        And why these accusations that it's somehow evil for me to
        defend my opinions when someone argues with me?  The phrase
        in .46 was "a long tirade about how right you are".  Of course
        the fact that the dissenting opinion preceding that "tirade"
        was a "tirade" about how right the author was and how wrong
        *I* was seems to be irrelevant.  When I described some of
        the goings on the other day to my wife, she commented that
        when someone argues I have a tendency to leap back in with
        counter argument... often rehashing what I've already said.
        Since she hasn't even read this conference, I suppose that
        means I must do it other places, too :-).  If that's what
        you're objecting to, and I admit it's often true, I can only
        try to explain... often, to my perception anyway, the arguments
        aren't really directed at the meat of what I said.  I get
        the impression that they really didn't understand what I
        meant---either their perception is different, or I just didn't
        say it right the first time (if they're really just trying
        to be contrary, then there's little point in trying again...
        although sometimes it's hard to tell the difference).  Or
        maybe it seems like a valid argument and I feel a need to
        expand and refine what I said.  Or maybe I have a feeling
        that by stating something a different way, they might see
        we don't disagree so much as they thought... in any case,
        the temptation to "try again" is often irresistable, and
        at least in many cases, probably valid.
        
        Ah well, this was lots longer than I intended, and at that
        I erased it and started over several times, and I doubt I'll
        ever really get it perfect.
        
        If you care to offer constructive criticism as to *how* and
        *when* I write, feel free... preferably by mail.  Telling
        me to just read and not write is futile... I can't and won't.
        Telling me to "write less" isn't telling me anything except
        that you don't like to listen to me... which quite honestly
        doesn't concern me a lot, unless *nobody* wants to listen
        to me *at all*.  There's always PF3.
        
        	/dave

    Boy, this note sure has covered a lot of territory.  I have not
    registered yet (I promise I will...) but feel real strongly about
    sharing some of my feelings.
    
    The notes about secretaries...  I agree totally that secretaries are
    overworked and underpaid and I don't think it makes one whit of
    difference if we're talking about female secretaries or male
    secretaries.  I've only worked with one male secretary and he had the
    same problems/feelings about the job/position as we did... He felt he
    was a "lower class citizen" on the business "class" ladder, etc.  I
    don't think the attitude towards secretaries is a sexual one but exists
    because secretaries have never been organized and had representatives
    to fight the battles necessary to change the perceptions some people
    have; a union maybe? 
    
    The comment about women not having male friends and vice versa...
    Most of my friends are male - it's always been that way and I really
    can't explain why.  I think women who don't have male friends and
    vice versa (once again) are really missing out on a lot.  Sure,
    it's hard sometimes to keep things platonic but the rewards are
    worth the effort.  I've run into women who have difficulty
    understanding pure platonic male-female relationships as well as
    men.  The attitude being that it's impossible - "they must be fooling
    around" or he/she has to be up to something.  It depends on the
    people involved and their ability and desire to have such a
    relationship...  they *do* exist..
    
    Final comment....  men and women are the same in many ways but
    they're also different in many ways.  Doesn't mean either one is
    better than the other; just different.  Maybe that's just to keep
    things interesting, eh?  :-)
    
    Sorry this is so long.  Thanks for your ears and have a great weekend!
    BTW, I love this notesfile!!  thanks moderator_maggie!!
    
    Cheers,
    Billie

    /dave,
    
    I've gone back to re-read all the replies to this note.
    It's seems you picked a difficult subject, one that I think there
    was little point in discussing (*intrinsic* differences), but as
    the discussion expanded to include societal differences, you kept
    try to force it back to the base note. The fact that most all the
    replies are about the treatment of women (and men) by society, would
    seem to be a tacit agreement with the base note, but let's discuss         
    the "real" differences (society's).
    I'm not retracting my original note, I still think you could use
    a little self-restraint. I am saying that I may have overstated
    the situation. Maybe I picked you to dump on because there seems
    to be more men discussing women's issues than women, (don't club
    me with statistics, you can prove anything with statistics ;-) ),
    and you were just an easy target.
    
    I don't hate you /dave, I don't want you to stop contributing.
    I don't think telling you to contribute less, is meaningless.
    Just relax, this is a discussion, not a debate. No-one wins,
    no-one loses. Everyone learns.
    
        ...when someone argues I have a tendency to leap back in with
           counter argument... often rehashing what I've already said.
           ...If that's what you're objecting to, and I admit it's 
           often true, I can only try to explain...
    
    This is what _I'm_ objecting to anyway. I understand completely, I
    am the same (in this respect). I love to argue, my point is that
    I don't believe that this is the proper "forum" to argue for its
    own sake. This is a discussion, expression of opinions, sure sometimes
    'discussions' can sound alot like arguments, but it seems that in
    a discussion, you can only argue. (statistics any one? I can be
    proven wrong, I can take it. ;-)
    
    well after too many words, I didn't mean to start a _DUMP_ON_/dave_
    note.
    
    --@^@--
    
    sm

    I believe that it's pretty well established that men interrupt a
    conversation more often than women do.  They listen less as a result.
    
    That's what it feels like to me very often when I read /dave.  It
    feels like he's interrupting us.
    
    I would like to suggest to you, /dave, that you just be polite about
    when to "interrupt", if you will.  Perhaps you could use this
    conference to practice listening and responding politely and with
    restraint.
    

        I guess I'm just a bit of a purist.  This topic was started
        for a purpose, and I'd rather like to see it stay with that
        purpose.  If people aren't interested in discussing that
        subject, fine... but *different* subjects, such as culture
        differences between men and women, or why people don't like
        my notes, should be in a *different* topic, not in this one.
        
        Notes topics always seem to stray somewhat, so it's not really
        surprizing that this one hasn't stayed near the original
        point, but even so most of the material here clearly belongs
        in an entirely different topic.
        
        "Interrupting"?  How does one interrupt a note?  Is taking
        a turn in a continuous rambling discussion by a number of
        different people an "interruption"?  That doesn't make any
        sense to me.  It's not as if I was saying things irrelevant
        to the topic (except possibly in this particular topic...
        but like I said, my intent is to bring things back to the
        stated *purpose* of the topic, when the thread of discussion
        has turned far afield).
        
        Furthermore, unlike some people I've observed here, I *do*
        listen, and with the possible exception of a few responses
        to direct and personal attacks, I've been as polite as anyone
        else.
        
        In any case, I've never seen any studies as to whether men or
        women interrupt more (which, of course, doesn't mean there are
        none).  *I* haven't seen evidence that men interrupt more than
        women, though it may be so.  Interruption generally seems to me
        to be a combination of three things: impatience, assertiveness,
        and/or rudeness.  All of these are traits more acceptable in men
        than in women in our society... could be an interesting subject
        of study at meetings and parties!
        
        Discussion:
        	1. To speak together about
        	2. To examine (a subject) in speech or writing: treat of
                                                                     
        Argument:
        	1. A discussion of differing points of view; debate
        	2. A quarrel
        	3. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating the
        	   truth or falsehood of something
        
        Argue:
        	1. To put forth reasons for or against something
        	2. To maintain in argument; contend
        	3. To dispute; quarrel
        	4. To persuade or influence, as by presenting reasons
        
        These from my blue office edition American Heritage Dictionary.
        
        One reply made an issue of whether this was a "discussion"
        (which is generally used to sound friendly and comfortable,
        as in meaning #1), or an "argument" (which is generally used
        to sound nasty, as in meaning #2).
        
        When I use the word argument, I intend meaning #1 or #3, and
        consider it to be constructive.  And notice specifically
        that meaning #1 of argument shows "argument" to be nothing
        more than a special case of "discussion" where differing
        points of view are involved: clearly the case for this
        conference.
        
        And yes, in discussion topics (read "arguments") most of my
        replies do indeed argue: in senses #1, #2, or #4.  Many
        arguments in this conference (specifically I might point out
        those directed against me rather than against any particular
        argument of mine) fall distinctly in the category of argument
        meaning #2: "to quarrel" (which the dictionary lists as "angry
        dispute").  They are not contributing to the course of the
        discussion and/or argument in any positive way. 
        
        Kindly direct arguments regarding myself which are of type #1 or
        #3 to me in person, via mail, and kindly keep arguments of type
        #2 to yourself.
        
        	/dave
             

    re .55:
    
    okay "next reply" key it is whenever I see "approachable systems".
    
    sm

    sounds like the only way to deal with this, smarshall - 
    
    think i'll highlight it on my kepad.
    
    angeline

    
    re: .42
    
    rik...it's good to hear from you!  I will be truly sorry if you
    decline to participate further in this conference.  I KNOW you,
    and I know that you have many valid and valuable experiences to
    contribute here.  I know that you have raised two daughters by
    yourself.  I have met them, I have watched you interact with them,
    and I AM IMPRESSED.  You treat them as human beings, which is something
    that so many people, male and female, need to learn how to do with
    their children.  Your daughters are two of the pleasantest, sanest
    young people I have ever encountered, and I KNOW that you are directly
    responsible for that.  If you seem angry at times, it is most likely
    frustration because when others argue about sexism, injustice, etc.,
    you have acted on it.  Hurrah for you!  Please continue to contribute!
    
    And this brings me to my next comment on this note:  Intrinsic versus
    societal differences.  I don't know if intrinsic differences exist.
    I do know that societal ones exist.  I live with my boyfriend. 
    He is not employed.  He keeps house, nurtures me and cares for me.
    I had discussion with a male collegue that ran like this:
    
    Him:  I have no respect for Tom anymore.  He doesn't have a job,
    and isn't trying very hard to get one.
    
    Me:  He has a job.  He takes care of our house, balances my checkbook,
    and runs our household.  You have a wife who does not work outside
    of your home, you should understand that being a homemaker is a
    legitimate fulltime job.
    
    Him:  That's different.
    
    
    On so on, ad naseum.  I have been fuming furious so many times,
    when men who support wifes or girlfriends have said, "What?  He
    doesn't work?  Why don't you kick the lazy bum out?"  INDEED!
    
    Societal differences like this are bruisingly unfair to both men
    and women.  Intrinsic differences, if there are such things, are
    not something we can effect.  Societal ones are.  Let's!
    
    Rita
    
    

	> . . . men interrupt a conversation more often than women
	> do.  They listen less as a result.

	    That's not true of all men, and I would imagine that
	it's not true of most men participating in this notesfile.
	    The study cited was made using a certain population:
	college students, mostly white, and mostly middle-class.  It
	was found that most interruptions were done by men (which,
	by the way, is very different from "men [all men? some men?]
	interrupt conversations more than women [all women? some wo-
	men?]").  The population in this notesfile probably includes
	a greater number of men who listen and a greater number of
	women who interrupt, since such behaviors are linked with
	things like open-mindedness and assertiveness.
	    You've got to be careful about over-generalization.
			<_Jym_>